Subsequent event rule brings a building within rent control protection once the ten-year exclusion period expires during litigation

A building initially outside the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 because it had not completed ten years could come within the Act if that period expired during pending litigation. The Court applied the principle that material subsequent events may be noticed to grant effective relief, and held that an amendment based on such events does not necessarily introduce a new cause of action. Once the ten-year exclusion ended during the proceedings, the tenant became entitled to invoke statutory protection and to receive the opportunity contemplated by Sections 20, 39 and 40 to deposit the dues required for relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether a building that was exempt from the new rent control law on the date of suit because it had not yet completed ten years could be brought within the Act when the ten-year period expired during the pendency of the litigation, and whether the tenant could then claim the statutory protection and consequential relief.

Analysis: Section 2(2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 makes the Act inapplicable to a building for ten years from the date of completion, while Explanation I treats the first assessment date as the date of completion where the building is subject to assessment. The Court held that the relevant date is not confined rigidly to the date of institution of the suit where a material subsequent event occurs during the pendency of the proceedings. Applying the principle that updated facts may be noticed to give effective relief, and that an amendment based on such subsequent facts does not necessarily amount to a new cause of action, the Court held that once the building completed ten years during litigation, the tenant became entitled to invoke the protection of the Act. Sections 20, 39 and 40 of the Act indicated that the tenant could seek the statutory protection and be afforded an opportunity to deposit the dues contemplated by the Act.

Conclusion: The new rent control Act was held applicable after the building completed ten years during the pendency of the case, and the tenant was held entitled to claim its protection and the corresponding opportunity under Section 39.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a building becomes subject to the rent control statute by reason of a subsequent event during pending litigation, the Court may take cognisance of that event and mould relief accordingly, including by permitting the tenant to claim the statutory protection and comply with the conditions for relief.

---